Bivens had an easement over Mobley's land. Despite this easement, Bivens actually accessed his property through the west side of Mobley's tract on a driveway beneath an electric company's overhead power line. No grant of easement rights was ever made for the power line driveway. Mobley constructed a house a few feet from the essentially unused east side easement and incorporated part of the easement into his yard. Things went sour when Mobley was informed that only he needed to get his own water meter and that Bivens could no longer use Mobley's water meter. Bivens wanted to run the water line through the unused east side easement. Mobley said no. The chancellor found that Bivens could have continued to get water without the use of the contested east side easement. The water service to Bivens' property was shut off, and his tenant left the property. Bivens indicated he was going to install the line on the east side easement. Mobley got a restraining order. Mobley (P) then filed a complaint to have the easement declared the result of mistaken description as the west side easement was intended or that the easement was lost through abandonment or adverse possession. The trial court found the easement had not been abandoned but that it was solely for access and it could not be burdened by a water line.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.